DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE COMPANIES V RADIO MINDANAO

NETWORK,INC
G.R. No. 147039
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; January 27, 2006
(owen)
NATURE
Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 RoC seeking the review of the CA Decision affirming RTC
Makati Decision reducing interest rate to 6% per annum
FACTS
- Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. (RADIO), who owns several broadcasting stations all over the
country, filed a civil case against DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies (DBP) and
Provident Insurance Corporation (PROVIDENT) for recovery of insurance benefits. PROVIDENT
covered RADIOs transmitter equipment and generating set for P13,550,000.00 under a Fire
Insurance Policy, while DBP covered RADIOs transmitter, furniture, fixture and other transmitter
facilities for P5,883,650.00 under a Fire Insurance Policy.
- July 27, 1988 evening, RADIOs station in Bacolod City was razed by fire causing damage in the
amount of P1,044,040.00. RADIO sought recovery under the two insurance policies but the claims
were denied on the ground that the cause of loss was an excepted risk excluded under condition
no. 6 (c) and (d)
6. This insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in
consequence, directly or indirectly, of any of the following consequences, namely:
(c) War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities, or warlike operations (whether war be
declared or not), civil war.
(d) Mutiny, riot, military or popular rising, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, military or usurped
power.
The insurance companies denied the claims by maintaining that the evidence showed that the fire
was caused by members of CPP/NPA. Hence, the civil case.
- RTC Makati: in favor of RADIO. PROVIDENT to pay P450,000.00 plus 12% legal interest from
March 2, 1990 the date of the filing of the Complaint. DBP to pay P602,600.00 plus 12% legal
interest from March 2, 1990.
- CA: affirmed the decision, with the modification that the applicable interest rate reduced to 6%
per annum. MFR denied.
- DBP assails: factual finding of both RTC and CA that its evidence failed to support its allegation
that the loss was caused by an excepted risk, (members of the CPP/NPA)
RTC
+ testimony of witnesses Lt. Col. Torres and SPO3 Rochar, who were admittedly not present when
the fire occurred, was limited to the fact that an investigation was conducted and in the course of
the investigation they were informed by bystanders that heavily armed men entered the transmitter
house, poured gasoline in it and then lit it. After that, they went out shouting Mabuhay ang NPA.
+ persons whom they investigated and actually saw the burning of the station were not presented
as witnesses
+ documentary evidence, which includes a letter released by the NPA merely mentions some
dissatisfaction with the activities of some people in the media in Bacolod, do not satisfactorily prove
that the author of the burning were members of the NPA..
CA
+ police blotter of the burning of DYHB
+ certification of the Negros Occidental Integrated National Police, Bacolod City regarding the
incident
+ letter of alleged NPA members Magsilang claiming responsibility for the burning of DYHB
+ fire investigation report dated July 29, 1988
+ testimonies of Lt. Col. Torres and SFO III Rochas
ISSUES

1. WON police blotter of the burning of DYHB, the certification issued by the Integrated National
Police of Bacolod City and the fire investigation report prepared by SFO III Rochas is deemed
sufficient (Entry in Official Records)
2. WON the testimony of Lt. Col. Torres is admissible
3. WON the letter of Magsilang, who claims to be a member of NPA-NIROC, being an admission
of person which is not a party to the present action, is admissible (Admission & Confessions)
4. WON the excepted risk was not proven by DBP
5. WON the reports of witnesses Lt. Col Torres and SFO II Rochar that the bystanders they
interviewed claimed that the perpetrators were members of the CPP/NPA is an exception to the
hearsay rule as part of res gestae (Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence)
HELD
1. NO
- The documentary evidence may be considered exceptions to the hearsay rule, being entries in
official records, nevertheless, none of these documents categorically stated that the perpetrators
were members of the CPP/NPA.
> police blotter: a group of persons accompanied by one (1) woman all believed to be CPP/NPA
more or less 20 persons suspected to be CPP/NPA,
> certification from the Bacolod Police station: some 20 or more armed men believed to be
members of the New Peoples Army NPA,
> fire investigation report: (I)t is therefore believed by this Investigating Team that the cause of the
fire is intentional, and the armed men suspected to be members of the CPP/NPA were the ones
responsible
- All these documents show that indeed, the suspected executor of the fire were believed to be
members of the CPP/NPA. But suspicion alone is not sufficient, preponderance of evidence being
the quantum of proof.
2. NO
- The only person who seems to be so sure that that the CPP-NPA had a hand in the burning of
DYHB was Lt. Col. Torres. However, though his testimony is persuasive, it cannot be admit as
conclusive proof that the CPP-NPA was really involved in the incident considering that he admitted
that he did not personally see the armed men even as he tried to pursue them. Note that when Lt.
Col. Torres was presented as witness, he was presented as an ordinary witness only and not an
expert witness. Hence, his opinion on the identity or membership of the armed men with the CPPNPA is not admissible in evidence.
3. NO
- Under Section 22, Rule 130 RoC. An admission is competent only when the declarant, or
someone identified in legal interest with him, is a party to the action.
4. YES
- In insurance cases, where a risk is excepted by the terms of a policy which insures against other
perils or hazards, loss from such a risk constitutes a defense which the insurer may urge, since it
has not assumed that risk, and from this it follows that an insurer seeking to defeat a claim
because of an exception or limitation in the policy has the burden of proving that the loss comes
within the purview of the exception or limitation set up. If a proof is made of a loss apparently
within a contract of insurance, the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a
cause of loss which is excepted or for which it is not liable, or from a cause which limits its liability.
- Consequently, it is sufficient for RADIO to prove the fact of damage or loss. Once RADIO makes
out a prima facie case in its favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to DBP to controvert
RADIOS prima facie case. In this case, since DBP alleged an excepted risk, then the burden of
evidence shifted to DBP to prove such exception. It is only when petitioner has sufficiently proven
that the damage or loss was caused by an excepted risk does the burden of evidence shift back to
respondent who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why such excepted risk does
not release petitioner from any liability
5. NO
- A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, which means
those facts which are derived from his perception. A witness may not testify as to what he merely
learned from others either because he was told or read or heard the same. Such testimony is

considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. The
hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay
evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not given under oath or solemn affirmation and, more
importantly, have not been subjected to cross-examination by opposing counsel to test the
perception, memory, veracity and articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose
reliability on which the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.
- Res gestae, as an exception to the hearsay rule, refers to those exclamations and statements
made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were
made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there
was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The rule in
res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify and provided that the testimony of the
witness who heard the declarant complies with the following requisites: (1) that the principal act,
the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had
the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.
- It is reasonable to assume that when these statements were noted down, the bystanders already
had enough time and opportunity to mill around, talk to one another and exchange information, not
to mention theories and speculations, as is the usual experience in disquieting situations where
hysteria is likely to take place. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether these utterances were
the products of truth. That the utterances may be mere idle talk is not remote. At best, the
testimonies of SFO III Rochar and Lt. Col. Torres that these statements were made may be
considered as independently relevant statements gathered in the course of their investigation, and
are admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered.
- Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency. Admissibility of
evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to
evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
- Even assuming that the declaration of the bystanders that it was the members of the CPP/NPA
who caused the fire may be admitted as evidence, it does not follow that such declarations are
sufficient proof. These declarations should be calibrated vis--vis the other evidence on record.
Disposition Petition is DISMISSED.
===============================
G.R. Nos. 146710-15. April 3, 2001
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, Petitioner, vs. ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as
Ombudsman, RAMON GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND
CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC., LEONARD DE
VERA, DENNIS FUNA, ROMEO CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.,
Respondents.
[G.R. No. 146738. April 3, 2001
although the declarant is available as a witness; it is competent only when the declarant,
or someone identified in legal interest with him, is a party to the action (VIII Francisco,
Evidence, 304 [1997 ed)